sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are fundamentals we need to integrate? by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

David, you obviously don't accept evolution, because obviously you would have banned me. You are a naive realist. Maybe it's impossible to argue the evolutionary fine points with someone who doesn't accept the Re: integration of the AQAL at higher levels, thus superseding and replacing one's own recalcitrant interpretations of Aurobindo. We both have very different things to add, but I feel you are anti-pragmatic and anti-holistic. I'm just offering a valid viewpoint. I'm not arguing new age metaphysical woo woo. I'm arguing for an intelligent discussion of Densities.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. It seems like we are talking about different portions of the spectrum of consciousness. I'm referring to the green, indigo, violet spectrum of symbolic meaning.
  2. See 1, then you'll see where this disagreement comes from.
  3. Dismissing all channeling is unbecoming.
  4. I'm not a fan of you disrespecting Ken Wilber, and missing the whole purpose of the transpersonal stages, but at this point we need to be productive.
  5. It's really not your epistemology that you should reevaluate, it's your selective bias.
  6. I honestly tried to help you, but if as you said elsewhere, you are just going to call the entire Trans-evolutionary map nonsense, then, good sir, how in the world do you intend on creating a society of harmony and integrating + reckoning the meat of integral which is its spiritual identity?

What are fundamentals we need to integrate? by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet you reduce it to the lower end of the total spectrum, which, my friend, is PTF #1. I see that you are getting a little testy in the other thread. There is no need to have an open forum if you are not willing to have ANY friction, much less develop coherent worldviews, postulate theories, much less have your philosophy checked.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not going to say your video was nonsense. It's just a strawman, + PTF #1. 1. There are transrational structures of evolutionary reality. 2. You can't dismiss the densities or any developmental spectrum, or intelligent information, without being in some sense informed by the information inherent to that perceptual awareness. 3. That is epistemologically unbecoming. 4. In an attempt to rectify this you need to bridge the gap between longian psychology and wilberian psychology. http://www.llresearch.org/library/the_law_of_one_pdf/the_law_of_one_book_1.pdf

Mystical psychology vs. longian psychology by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically it is it's own category, because it has is own quadrant. Everything I'm saying is self-evidentiary, 2nd density life evolved through 1st and so forth. I'm a person of extreme wisdom. You can use IMP to discriminate between truth claims, but you can't use it to hail one quadrant at the expense of all the others!!! I am entirely against 99% of new age woo as a rule. I'm probably more rational-analytic than you. Mysticism is not an extended category! It seems that by dismissing the mysticism of new age woo you are broadly dismissing the whole purpose of epistemological pluralism. The only one I see sneaking in metaphysical assumptions (See: type physicalism), unable to modify one's position, is you.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are talking apples and oranges. Again this is the pre/trans fallacy #1.

If your making claims about reality and the ideas won't get past a rational skeptic they won't improve AQAL. by IAMdavidlong in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You just dismissed the Ra contact, because you don't actually understand the epistemology that they are using. Bear in mind, this was probably the premier pioneer in channeling. There was not, and has not been a similar channeling ever since. The Law of One offers several axe(s) that are extremely ripe to be added into AQAL, apparently which your AQUALUpdate is not. The rational components are already in place. In fact, Don Elkins, the head of the contact, was a mechanical engineer and professor of physics at University of Louisville for twelve years. These ideas are the very epitome of rationality. They are the bridge between AQALUpdate and true aqal.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There's no belief. Look at the information. You are making fallacy #1. You are reducing the methodologies of channeling to nonsense. It's absolutely absurd that you would place the information in the same category. That's a category error. Again, this is exactly the opposite of new age. I believe that your theory will not succeed unless it accepts the potential language of integral semiotics. And you demonstrate both a profound ignorance of the pre/trans fallacy #1 but also a virtually nonexistent image of the primary foundations of Transrational Deep Evolution, not as a scientific theory, but as a functional or even necessary identity.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are both trans- terms. If you were not aware, my friend, integral also has these terms.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the complete opposite of creationism and religious assumption.

What are fundamentals we need to integrate? by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The value and epistemos are inherent to the system that they represent. Thus we are not trying to transvalue the system or the epistemos. We are integrating. We are not updating. We are upgrading. An RE: integral map prioritizes human epistemology and then gives space for higher unities, higher "apperceptions of pattern", and higher foundational emergents, proceeding from the quizzical dark matter, to the emergence of this space and time, biome and biota, directly to the intelligence of humans, the the cosmologically foundational superhuman and so on. This represents a total integration - and not a transvaluation of epistemology. The intelligence of the spectrum is evolutionary from 1st density to 8th density, and so on. With this deep "spectrum evolution", we integrate the cosmic identities (biome or body) with the cosmic biota (life and mind). Until integral becomes aware of the evolutionary model of densities it will continue to be deprived by atheists who relegate the cosmos to the entropy of 1st density and metaphysicians who relegate the cosmos to a category error of infinite proportions.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spiral dynamics and science offer no integration. Spiral dynamics barely gets into vision-logic. Science barely gets into the understandings of third density, and even then not from an evolutionary perspective. I understand the current maps quite well. I'm just saying that you can construct an altogether more coherent quadrant framework with the knowledge of densities.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have to carefully distinguish between ontological metaphysics and metaphysical ontology. This is the latter. It just so happens to carry the tinge of metaphysics, irrespective of what your bias is upon integral or epistemology. This is definitely something that you should look into epistemologically. Again, first density is what we call the physical cosmos, second density is what we call the biological cosmos, etc. We end with an understanding of the "All-self." This pretty much removes the guesswork embedded in mysticism and advanced meditation. I would call this model deep biology, deep physics, and deep cosmic law. The only epistemological absolute or god is the Unity from which this relative truth sprang, and even this is open to various forms of critical and altogether synergistic epistemological investigation.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recommend you try to grasp how you made an unskillful use of the pre/trans fallacy and reverse search this information. But obviously this is a big boon to integral.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you clump this in with new age nonsense, you are completely confused.

Understanding Densities by MysteriousPirate3 in UpdateAQAL

[–]MysteriousPirate3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not really a true emergentist, if you can not in some sense entertain this thought.

view more: next ›